Vitruvius tions of forms constitutes authority as preceden statio, acknowledges a form of social contract Finally, Vitruvius turns to decor’ lst category, 7 7 AS a notion. then, consuetudo, like natura: ‘There will be a natural decor: first, if forall emples thee shall be chosen the most healthy sit with suitable springs in those places in which shrines are to be set up; secondly and spect for supply is fom wholesome fountins, they will more quickly recover So wil i happen tha the diy, (Gon ths nas of i Se) wl ra a greater ane hes ceyatcon a say (dguits).Also there will be natural seealines (dear natu) if ight is taken from the ext or ta rooms and libraries; for baths and winter apartment, fom the winey suse; for picture galleries and the apartments which need steady light, ftom the north, because that quarter of the hecvere i neither ilumined noe darkened by the sun’ course buts fixed unchangeable throughout the dy ‘Nana, then, is presented as operating at the level of the relationship between building and site: on the one hand, the selection of a healthy site enhances the digas of the god by reinforcing his manifestation, especially if this should be health zelated and hence site specific, un the other hand, the appropriate disposition of finctions within the site also enhances and facilitates their realization. Here Vitruvius is again concerned with coherence ~ this time, however, between the building and the context that receives it. A protracted narrative is also (again) at issuc, this time generated by the interaction between landscape and building. For Vitruvius, it is the congruence between the two that finally ensures che appropriateness of purpose required of a per~ fect building. In the case of natura, the authority with reference to which the building needs to conform falls in the domain of utilis raised to the level of aesthetic principle The role of a third party is again critical, albeit implicit. Harmony (between the building and external, practical factors) is sought bearing in mind an audience who expects it and will recognize it as such. Neither ornament nor the orders are at issue; it is the finished building (one that already displays all the “right” components) that moves into the foreground. For a building to be harmonious and coherent within itself, it must also be harmonious with the purpose it is intended to fulfill for its users. To the unity of content and the unity of form required by statio and consuetsido, respec tively, Vitruvius adds the unity of purpose. This completes his definition of decor ‘There is a scholarly tradition that pairs decor with distriburio and sees the latter as fiar~ ther clicidation of the domain and mechanisms of operation for decor The theory is seductive because it allows a symmetrical arrangement in pairs of Vitruvius’ six aesthetic Categories: ondinatio/symmetria, dispositio/eurythiia, and decor/distributio. Such pairing is based on distinguishing between states of the building (object-related categories) and activites of the architect that induce them (process-related categonies). Indeed, Vitruvitis himself confuses decor and distributio when he later refers the architectural implications of the client's status to decor® However, though the implication of overlaps between the 39ee Der demands the fauldes ensemble of a work co approved details. [Decor autem es emendatus opens apy cabeys convention (statio), which in Greek is called (natura). The definition is av rich as it is short. Res come together (compositi) into appearance (aspectus); this appearance will be faultless (emendatus) if composition i performed with “fie” things (probatis rebus) according to authority (cum auictoritate). Since composition is the issue, decor, like eurythmia, encails a judgment of the “right place” However, here the guiding auctoritas is defined and Vitruvius offers the means to achieve correct judg- ment. It is the architects responsibility co understand this authority and ue ie eon. rectly; he is not given much freedom to choose among alternatives; nevertheles, even if restrictvely, decor does address the parameters that guide what little choice the left open. The relationship with the authority referred to in the opening sentence is con- trolled by three agents: statio (or thematismes), consuetudo, and natura. These are defined by means of two sets of examples each. However, this second layer of definitions is latent in the text, since Vitruvius places the onus on the reader to abstract it from the concrete examples with which he illustrates his terms. As such, they remained tantaliz~ ingly (and productively) open to interpretation, canon Convention (stare) is obeyed when buildings are put up in the open and hypethral to Jupiter of the Lightning, to Heaven, the Sun, the Moon; for of these gods, both the appearance and effect we see present in the open, the world of light. To Minerva, Mars and Hercules, Dorie temples will be built; for to these gods, because of their might (virtw), buildings ought (decei) to be erected without embellishments, Temples designed in the Corinthian style (genus) will seem to have details suited to Venus, Flor, Proserpine, Fountains, Nymphs; for these goddeses, on account of their gentleness (teneritas), works constructed with slighter proportions and adorned with flowers, foliage, spirals and volutes will seem to gain in just decor. To Juno, Diana and Father Bacchus, and the other gods who are of the same likeness, if Tonic temples are erected, account will be taken of their middle quality (ratio mediocitati); because the determinate charac ter of their temples will avoid the severe (severitus) manner of the Doric and the softer manner of the Corinthian.'5 Statio then affects the choice of aspectus (plan type) for the temple and the choice of the columnar orders (gente). Both choices refer to a translation into architectural form. of what is known about the god to whom the temple is to be dedicated. The visual and yer~ bal domains habitually associated with this god (myths, belie, stories, bur also known representations) are therefore the reference point for judgment of the “right place” and the appearance of the building must be coherent with them. Thus the “slighter propor- tions” and the “flowers, foliage, spirals and volutes” of the Corinthian will suit Nymaphs and Fountains as their delicate personalities, bodily characteristics, movements, anc fiabi= tats are all subtly recalled for the benefit of the (knowledgeable) viewer, The choice of order therefore involves a complex referencing system. The gender characteristics of the 37,CHAPTER TWO Vitruvius Icis evident from the foregoing survey that De architeaura was a central reference point for the discourse that both gave rise to and accompanied the archaeological activity of the Renaissance, It was aso the principal site of imbrication between humanistic and architectural discourses. Vitruvius’ language and issues inevitably became the language and isues of recuperation and its attendant will to self-definition. Natuzally his readers Jooked to him for a theory of artistic invention and transformation; they also turned to him for enlightenment on the logic that bound architectural forms together into larger aggregates, As we have seen, the connection between these questions had been thrust into aichitecs' consciousness with great force by the fragmented condition in which ancient buildings survived, The (re)asemblage process made apparent not only that asembling compound entities from a kit of parts was a process specific to architecure, = eee ae el choice, variety, and invention, hence deci) ened rian th proces ornament (ays the cen of Propriation and its paradoxes: on the one hand, the most obvious and accessible m neans of replaying antiquity; on i ! 8 3 on the other, the site that offered most potential for invention.| ae ee Vitruvius certainly speaks much about license, Alth ‘orically on thy between ly on the cusp Republican and Imperial — he recommends i auy indication of a larger attitude, it would low architects ~ however imaginative or subservient nee po 2 HeAtelecied upon iewith any, depres of a4